Date of Filing: 17-11-2017 Date of Final Order: 20-03-2018
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The Complainant has filed the present case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.The brief facts of the case are that the AE & Station Manager,Dolongmore Customer Care Centre disconnected the electric supply line on 02.11.2017 without any notice. The Complainant has given a letter on 09.11.2017 to know the cause for disconnection. The Complainant paid Rs. 16,300/- twice on 01.09.2017 and on 22.09.2017 and Rs. 10,100/- on 01,11,2017 in connection with his electric consumption. Thereafter the O.P. demanded Rs. 52180/- for 5437 units arbitrarily. Further, the Complainant sent a letter to the O.P. on 07.07.2017 for considering the above amount but the O.P. did not pay any heed towards it. The Complainant finding no other alternatives has filed the present case against the O.P. seeking relief and redress as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
The O.P. has contested the case contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable before this Forum in its present form as well as in law also the Complainant has no cause of action to file this case. The present claim petition is liable to be dismissed for want of cogent reason which might attract Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practice as defined in C.P. Act 1986.
The main contention of the O.P. is that the electric connection of the Complainant was disconnected on 02.11.2017 due to illegal use of the domestic connection for commercial purpose after doing proper inspection by the O.P. During the time of inspection this answering O.P. noticed that the Complainant used the electricity in unauthorized manner which may cause electrical accident and also violates the safety rules. Thereafter the O.P. made an inspection report but the Complainant denied signing on it. Ultimately the O.P. sent the same through registered post to the Complainant.
This O.P. denied that the O.P. raised the bill arbitrarily and submits that the bill for the month of December 2016 to February 2017 of Rs. 52,180/- against consumed units 5516 was claimed from the Complainant as per physical meter reading. Thereafter, the Complainant on 07.07.2017 submitted a letter of request for changing the existing meter, the O.P. considering the matter regenerated the bill and fixed the amount of Rs. 50,249.32/-. The Complainant then paid the amount without any objection. The Complainant then advised to take commercial meter but the Complainant did not pay any heed. Further contention of this O.P. is that the Complainant after taking the domestic connection using the same for commercial purpose. Thus, for this illegal activity of the Complainant the WBSEDCL suffered huge pecuniary loss.
By putting all above the O.P. stated that it has no deficiency in service from the part of the O.P. and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the parties along with relevant documents. Perused also the written argument filed by the parties and heard the argument advanced by the Complainant and the Ld. Agent of the O.P. at a length.
Point No.1.
Admittedly, the Complainant has an electric service connection obtained from the O.P. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.P. so established from the record, we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer as per section 2 1(d) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Point No. 2.
The office of the O.P. is situated in this District and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present dispute.
Point No. 3 & 4.
The points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and for the sake of brevity.
Undisputedly, the Complainant was in continuing use of electricity in his premises served by the O.P. The point of the dispute is that the Complainant received a huge amount of bill for the month of December, 2016 to February, 2017 showing consumed units 5516. The Complainant being astonished went to the office of the O.P with a request to re-generate the aforesaid bill. In the meantime, the O.P disconnected the electric service of the Complainant’s premises on 02/11/2017 without any prior intimation.
It is the case of the O.P is that the Complainant used is domestic electric connection for commercial purpose. The O.P made an inspection on 02/11/2017 and noticed that the Complainant using the electricity unauthorised for which the O.P without any hesitation and as per regulation of W.B.E.R.C disconnected the electric service from the house of the Complainant.
The Complainant files some documents without marking any annexure from which it appears that on 02/11/2017 the O.P issued a letter to the Complainant for information regarding disconnection of his electric line. On 07/07/2017 the Complainant made an application to the O.P with a request to convert his domestic line to commercial line.
The O.P filed some documents marked as annexure “A” to “K”. Annexure “D”, “E”, “F” & “G” go to show that the Complainant tampered the service line by installing a change-over system beyond the knowledge of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Annexure “F”& “G” also go to show that the Complainant installed high voltage purifier motor. The Complainant admitted that he was using high voltage pump for purification of drinking water i.e. also not within the knowledge of the O.P Electric Company. It is also clear from the annexure “K” that the Complainant paid the total electric bill and at present only 12019.44 is an outstanding dues to the WBSEDCL.
During the course of argument, the Complainant admitted that he used water purifier motor and installed change-over cable in his electric line with proper permission of the WBSEDCL but in the record there is no iota of evidence that the O.P. Electric Company was informed by the Complainant in the above matter. Thus, the statement of the Complainant is not corroborated with the cogent documents. Further, from the annexure filed by the O.P squarely proved that the Complainant used his domestic connection in commercial purpose. Generally, for purification of drinking water only for domestic purpose it is not necessary to install high voltage motor and it is reasonably be presumed that the Complainant used the same only for earning profit illegally.
On the other hand the Complainant alleged that the O.P illegally disconnected his domestic connection without any prior notice. Annexure “A1” a copy of regulation of WBERC filed by the O.P wherein point 4.2.1 reveals that the licensee may disconnect the electric supply immediately upon detection of theft or unauthorised use of electricity by an order of an authorised officer. Thus, the O.P on 02/11/2017 after inspection of the premises of the Complainant by noticing the unauthorised use of electricity and considering safe and safety disconnected the electric connection. The O.P. made an inspection report but the Complainant denied signing on it. In the inspection Memo No.DLM/CCC/932 dated 02/11/2017 there is a signature of one Ashok Barman as witness.
From the documents made available in the record it is crystal clear that the Complainant is guilty of theft of electricity for which he is not entitled to enjoy electricity further for which the O.P rightly disconnected the electric line of the Complainant.
In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case together with the attitude of the parties, we do not find any deficiency in service of the O.P. As no deficiency in service of the O.P is proved, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the O.P.
Besides, it is clearly proved that the Complainant used his domestic connection for commercial purpose behind back of knowledge of the O.P. i.e. the violation of the Electricity Act. The Complainant by suppressing the material facts has filed the present case before this Forum and did not come with clean hand for which this petition be termed as frivolous and vexatious as per Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Thus, in our considered opinion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed but with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the complaint Case No. CC/100/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest but with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The Complainant is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost in favour of Consumer Legal Aid Account and rest of Rs. 5,000/- to the O.P. WBSEDCL within 30 days from this order. The O.P. is at liberty to take legal action against the Complainant as per WBERC guide line.
Let a plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
The copy of this order also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
